One of the main issues debated within the
Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) from mid-1945 until its last
conference in June 1949 was entrism. On the basis of completely wrong
perspectives the Fourth International (FI) leadership (the then
International Secretariat [IS] and International Executive Committee [IEC])
and the Gerry Healy-led Minority within the RCP argued first for entry
into the Independent Labour Party (ILP) and then, from the end of 1945,
for entry into the Labour Party (LP).
This debate continued until the FI forced the RCP
to agree, in October 1947, that the Minority could establish their own
organisation, completely separate from the RCP and the RCP's own LP group,
working within the LP. From the beginning the Healy group in the LP worked
in an opportunist fashion. Before this division the RCP had 336 members,
of whom 66 worked within the LP. Only half of the 66 RCP members in the LP
supported the Healy-led Minority.
During this three year debate Ted Grant (TG) opposed entry.
While both the objective situation and the strength of Trotskyism are very
different today when compared with the 1940s and we have developed
enormously the methods of entrism it is still very interesting to read the
general comments on entrism which TG and the RCP majority made at that
time.
The first major document of the RCP majority in
this discussion on the LP was a reply to a document of Healy written in
November 1945. TG and the RCP majority wrote:
At the same time the debate on entry into the ILP
continued. In March 1946 the RCP PB wrote an article attacking the
position of Stuart (Sam Gordon) the FI's official representative in
Britain, TG and the RCP wrote:
In June 1946 the then IEC called on the RCP to
enter the LP and in January 1947 the then IS wrote to the RCP CC urging
them to agree to this policy. In March 1947 the RCP PB wrote a long reply
("The Real Situation In Britain") attacking the IS's wrong
perspectives and wrong attitude to entry. At that time TG and the RCP
Majority rejected the idea of long-term entry as incorrect. It was only
after the dissolving of the RCP and the entry of its members into the LP
in June 1949, the subsequent re-unification with the Healy group to form
the "Club" and the expulsion of TG and his supporters from the
"Club" in 1950 that TG and the other comrades drew the
conclusion that, because of their extreme weakness, they were faced with
long term work within the LP.
Frankly it seems to us that you have been swept
off your feet by the victory of the Labour Party. Echoing the ideas
developed by Lenin and Trotsky, and which are now commonplace in our
movement, that the masses do not desert their traditional organisations
lightly; that only great historical shocks prepare the movement of the
masses away from their traditional organisations, you lecture us on the
need to go through the experience of Labour in power.
But you have lost sight of the meaning of the
slogan of Labour to power. What did Lenin and Trotsky mean when they
spoke of the masses going through the experiences of the Labour Party in
power? Did they mean that automatically and of necessity, the masses
must go through the local organisations of the Labour Party? In that
event, the Communist Party should never have been formed at all in
Britain, nor the Trotskyist Party. The Trotskyists should have entered
the LP and remained there until the masses had completed their
experience. This position which was evolved by the "Left"
faction who split from the RCP in 1945, is now being seriously repeated
in the camp of the British Minority. This conception, however, is a
miserable caricature of the tactic advanced by the Fourth International.
There aim of the Leninist slogan of "Labour
to power" was to mobilise the masses within the limits of their
attachment to the mass organisation, against the capitalists, and to
serve as a bridge to these masses. (In this it had the same function as
the CGT - S P - CP to power slogan in France.) It was formulated it with
the knowledge that agitation and propaganda would not be sufficient to
convince the broad masses of the correctness of revolutionary communism
by themselves, and that it was also necessary that the masses should
experience the activities of reformism in power in order to realise the
futility of reformism. That the revolutionary party would seek the best
methods of fully participating in these experiences and fructifying them
to the advantage of revolutionary communism, goes without saying. But
what is surprising is that neither the I S nor their collaborators in
Britain appeared to be aware of the fact that the masses are going
through this experience of Labour in power right now!
The organisational forms under which they would
undergo this experience could not be exactly chartered in advance. On
the basis of actual experience, we can now see how the workers are
reacting in their organisations to a Labour in a power.
Insofar as the workers are moving into action
against the government and the policy of the LP tops, it is primarily
through the trade unions. They are conspicuously absent from active
participation in the local Labour Parties.
You want us to come to these workers, dockers,
transport workers, and other sections who come into collision with the
Labour leaders, not under the most favourable and legal conditions with
our own banner but under unfavourable illegal conditions with the banner
of the "Lefts" in the Labour Party.
At a time when the broad masses, above all the
decisive section of the workers organised in the trade unions, are going
through the experience of the Labour government, not inside the local
Labour parties, but through their trade unions and ad hoc organisations,
to advocate that the Trotskyists should enter the Labour Party, is to
stand the tactic of entry on its head.
All the arguments of the IS and our Minority
lead to the conclusion that the industrial struggles reflect themselves
directly in the Labour Party, and that as an independent force we are
too weak and isolated to influence the trend of events outside the
Labour Party
The general conditions for entry - Trotsky's
method
When we asked you to explain your conception of
the general theoretical considerations for entry, you replied with a
sophism:
"this question is above all a concrete one
..."
In this you are not approaching the problem as
Trotsky did. Thus your references to entry for the purpose of
self-preservation during a period of reaction on the one hand, or for
the purpose of undertaking the first serious work on the part of
isolated revolutionists at the dawn of its tendency, on the other, is an
evasion.
Your backhanded introduction of the leftism of
Oehler (which can only have as its aim the smearing of your opponents
with a label which does not belong to them) is sheer demagogy.
You say:
"the best manner of proceeding at present
in this question seems to us to be to start not from a general
formulation of the conditions under which they entrist tactic is to be
recommended and is practicable but on the contrary from concrete
conditions."
Thus, according to you, there are no lessons of
a general theoretical character to be drawn from our experiences of
entry in the past. The subject is not to be approached from the
standpoint of historical and political generalisations in which the
experience gained through the test of events is used to confirm and
concretise the practical tasks, but from the standpoint of the rule of
the thumb - the crassest empiricism.
In direct contrast to your method Trotsky did
approach the problem and base himself on general historical
considerations. He initiated the discussion on the French Turn in two
articles published in "La Verite", August 1934, and September
1934. (Note by BL: This article, actually published in "La Verite"
in September 1934 summed up the discussion that had begun in July 1934)
Let us examine how he posed the problem. France had entered a crisis of
the regime, he wrote:
"The Socialist Party of France ... is
developing in a direction opposite to that of the development of the
state; whereas parliamentarianism has been replaced by Bonapartism,
which represents an unstable stage on the road to Fascism, Social
Democracy, on the other hand, goes forward to a mortal conflict with
Fascism. Is it possible, however, to give to this proposition, which has
today enormous significance for French politics an unconditional and
therefore INTERNATIONAL character?
"No, truth is always concrete. When we
speak of the opposite directions of the development of social democracy
and of that of the bourgeois state under the conditions of the present
social crisis, we have to view only the general TENDENCY of development,
and not some uniform an automatic process. The political question is
decided for us by the extent to which the tendency has been realised in
practice.
".. .. the tendency to the squeezing out
of reformism by centrism, like the tendency to the radical isolation of
centrism, cannot but have an international character, in accord with the
general crisis of capitalism and of the democratic state. But a decisive
significance for practical, and especially for organisational
conclusions, is possessed by the question as to how this tendency is
reflected - at the given stage of development - in the Socialist Party
of the given country. The general line of development which we have
established must only direct our analysis, and can in no way anticipate
its conclusions.
".. .. In pre-fascist Germany the approach
of the rupture between the bourgeois state and reformism found its
expression in the formation of a left wing within social democracy.
".. .. in France this same basic
historical tendency has found an essentially different reflection. Under
the influence both of special national conditions and of international
lessons, the internal crisis in French democracy assumed a considerably
deeper development than in the corresponding period in German Social
Democracy.
".. .. An analysis should be made, from
the above point of view, of the position of the Socialist parties of all
capitalist countries which a passing through different stages of the
crisis. But this task goes beyond the limits of the present article. We
will point only to Belgium, where the Social Democratic Party, tied up
by its thoroughly reactionary and corrupted Parliament, municipal, trade
union, co-operative and banking bureaucracy, finds itself today
struggling with its LEFT wing and strives to imitate its German models (Wels-Severing
and Co.) it is clear that it is not possible to draw the same practical
conclusions for both France and Belgium." ("The Way Out",
August 1934, Trotsky's emphasis in CAPITALS - our emphasis in bold)
Thus, according to Trotsky the whole historical
process of conflict between the state and social democracy, and the
tendency to polarisation WITHIN the Social Democratic organisation were
the political factors upon which we based our orientation towards these
organisations. But for practical decisions posing the question of entry
as an immediate task, the political question is decided for us by the
extent to which the tendency of polarisation has been realised in
practice.
Above all .. ..
".. .. it is necessary to keep one's hand
on the pulse of the workers' movement and to draw on each occasion the
necessary conclusions. "
Contrast this dialectical method of the older
man with the pettifogging metaphysics in your material.
All the experiences of the British Trotskyists
confirmed the correctness of the Old Man's method: positively, from our
correct application of the method, and negatively, when we made various
mistakes.
Our past experiences of entry
In Britain we were in the ILP when the
left-wing of that organisation split towards Stalinism, and a
consolidation of the right wing took place. Inside the Labour Party a
left wing had arisen of some dimensions. The Labour League of Youth was
a mass political youth organisation, 30,000 strong, in conflict with the
Labour leadership. At this stage, Trotsky, keeping his finger on the
pulse of the workers' movement, gave an interview to one of our comrades
in which he gave the following directives on our future course.
To the question should the ILP seek entry into
the Labour Party? He replied:
"At the
moment the question is not posed this way. What the ILP must do, if it
is to become a revolutionary party, is to turn his back on the Communist
Party [See Note 1] and face the mass
organisations. It must put 99 per cent of its energies into building up
fractions in the trade union movement. At the moment I understand that
much of the fractional work can be done openly by the ILPers in their
capacity of trade union and co-operative members. But the ILP should
never rest content; it must build its influence in the mass
organisations with the utmost speed and energy. For the time may come
when in order to reach the masses, it must enter the Labour Party, and
it must have tracks laid for the occasion. Only the experience that
comes from such fractional work can inform the ILP if and when it must
enter the Labour Party. For all its activity an absolutely clear
programme is the first condition. A small axe can fell a large tree it
only if it is sharp enough. " (our emphasis)
On the question of the Labour League of Youth,
however, Trotsky had an entirely different answer. To the
question: would you recommend the same perspective for the ILP Guild of
Youth as the adult Party? He answered:
"even more. Since the ILP youth seemed to
be few and scattered, while the Labour youth is a mass organisation, I
would say: "do not only build factions - seek to enter."
"For here the danger of Stalinist
devastation is extreme. The youth are all important (Leon Trotsky's emphasis) ..
.. they will listen more easily to us - if we are there to speak to
them. (LT's emphasis). No time must be lost. Out of the new generation
comes the new International, the only hope for the World Revolution. The
British section will recruit its first cadres from the 30,000 young
workers in the Labour League of Youth. Their more advanced comrades in
the ILP youth must not allow themselves to be isolated from them,
especially now at the very moment when war is a real danger."
The flexible approach of the Old Man, his
sensitivity to the pulse, and are essential elements in the armoury of
our movement. Without this it is not possible to make a correct tactical
assault upon the mass organisations.
For nearly 14 years, the
question of entry has never been off the agenda for the British
Trotskyist movement. First the ILP, then the Labour Party. During the
whole of this period British Trotskyists have been in the process of
entering these organisations or in the process of leaving them! Added to
the hundreds of documents, there is a mass of accumulated practical
experience, mistakes and successes [see note 2]. It
is clear that the I S has neither studied these experiences, nor is it
very interested in them. Thus you can write:
"we know that these experiences (entry)
have not been very happy ones in Britain .. .. but to merely use these
unfavourable experiences as a general argument against entry now seems
to us entirely incorrect."
But far from all our experiences being bad
experiences, there have also been many good ones. Despite several
mistakes, mainly due to the youthfulness and inexperience of the cadres,
the first real break from the vicious circle of our complete isolation
was made as a result of entry into the League of Youth (LOY).
But it is impossible even to speak of the
situation being similar today to what it was at that time. The Labour
Party had just recovered from the blows of the McDonald - Snowdon sell
out. The local wards of the Labour Party were active bodies, part of a
pulsing movement, participating in unemployed demonstrations and in
struggles against the fascists. Although the general level of
consciousness was lower and the objectives had a more immediate
character, nevertheless, the criticism of the Labour leadership and
active opposition to it was widespread. The Socialist League reflected
this opposition even though it was a petit-bourgeois tendency led by
Cripps. At the same time, the mass League of Youth was in revolt against
the Labour Party tops, and in to which the Stalinist had sent a
formidable faction. In this vigorous and active milieu there was scope
for mass revolutionary work on the basis of total entry.
This experience proved conclusively the
correctness of the Old Man's method. A small revolutionary group,
lacking much of the experience which we have since gained, could grow
considerably in a relatively short space of time.
When the movement began to decline following a
mass split from the Labour League of Youth towards Stalinism, and
especially after the outbreak of the war, it is now clear that it was a
mistake to remain completely entrist, and the comrades who turned
outward towards the strike struggles and away from the Labour Party
adopted the correct tactic under the given conditions.
All our experiences demonstrate the following:
1) In a period of healthy internal life and
internal struggle within the reformist or centrist organisations into
which we had entered the Trotskyist tendency could grow; and
2) When the movement was quiet and more or less
dormant we did not grow but stagnated - especially if the real struggles
of the workers found expression outside the Labour Party in the unions
and factory organisations.
Innovations on entry - and new objectives
for Trotskyism
Your abandonment of the whole Trotskyist
approach to the problem of entry is accompanied by new perspectives and
tasks for the British Trotskyists.
No longer is entry to be considered as a
short-term perspective under conditions of centrist polarisation; now it
is to be conceived as a long-term perspective. "entry" you
write ".. .. signifies for the Trotskyists a campaign of relatively
long duration."
The fact that this tactical conclusion is in
contradiction with your short-term economic and political prognosis of
crisis, does not seem to you to require explanation. Such trifles are
unimportant in a thesis which in any case lacks the first elements of
cohesion. Nevertheless, it is necessary to dwell on this problem a
little.
A long term perspective, qualified though it
may be with the distinction of being relative, can only be conceived of
if you accept the economic and political perspective as put forward in
our thesis. If, on the contrary, one accepts the perspective of a
rapidly developing crisis, the idea of a long-term perspective is
ridiculous in the extreme. However sympathetically one tries to approach
the contradiction, the only aspect that stands out clearly is the
ideological crisis in the I S.
Another aspect of this innovation of a
long-term perspective has to be taken into consideration: the continued
presence of the revolutionary current in the reformist party does not
depend only on the determination of revolutionaries to remain, and their
skill at manoeuvre. Nor does it depend on the measure of support that it
may be possible to find in the mass party. The attitude of the
bureaucracy is an important element which has also to be taken into
account. As soon as the Trotskyists begin to dig the ribs of the
bureaucracy, locally and nationally, the big stick will be wielded, and
the Labour leaders have much experience at wielding it. In a live
pulsing milieu, the Trotskyists can find some protection, though even
then, not for long. But the conduct of revolutionary activity outside
the Labour Party, which is what you are forced to advocate since the
workers do not attend Labour Party ward meetings - and which irritates
the bureaucracy inside that Party - will soon bring its own
results."
("The Real Situation In Britain",
March 1947)
At that time there ILP had an
ultra-left attitude towards the Labour Party upon which it had turned his
back, and at the same time, had set up permanent "unity
committees" with the CP. Trotsky advocated a complete rupture of
these "unity committees", which "were nonsense in any
case." In place of this, he argued that the only important United
Front for the ILP was with the Labour Party, the trade unions and the
co-operatives and that the first step towards this was a rupture with the
CP. [Back]
Needless to say this long-term perspective of yesterday was quietly
dropped overboard in the dark of night.